KC DOG BLOG

Factors Associated w/ Aggressive Responses in pet dogs

Breed-specific laws (and the ineffectiveness of them) are a common theme on this blog. I feel that all too often people read about an incident in the newspaper, and are quick to react with some type of legislation in response to the incident without taking the time to understand what it is that leads dogs to be aggressive in the first place. This is especially notable as most dogs never show aggression to their owners, or to others, and there are very few significant canine-related aggression issues each year in spite of there being roughly 72 million owned dogs in this country.

But even with the small numbers, dog aggression is a concern to some, and as I find reliable studies that address these issues, I try to post them because I always think more information is better than less information...which leads us to today's study: Factors Associated w/ Aggressiver Responses in Pet Dogs. (the entire study is at the link).

The study, like some similar studies, relied on the C-BARQ questionaire for people to report different factors in their dog's aggressive behavior. The study itself has some sample bias issues, as well as some issues that come with owners rating behavior via C-BARQ -- but the sample size is quite large (852 dog ownerss) and I think the results are interesting enough to share as they do add to the dogs/aggression data out there.

 The dogs were rated on 3 different types of aggression: Stranger Directed Aggression, Owner Directed Aggression and dog-directed aggression. I'll get into a few of considerations, but first, I'll just list the factors that seemed to be important for the different types of aggression.

For all three types of aggression, the presence of physical punishment was seen as an important factor -- although dogs aged 5-10 were the primary ones impacted by this for Owner-Directed Aggression.

Breed was also a possible factor in all three types of aggression -- with Golden Retrievers scoring the lowest in all three segments and mixed breeds being the highest. The breeds ranked in order very differently from there depending on the type of aggression shown.

Dog Characteristics: Other than breed, male dogs, dogs that had not been spayed or neutered and dogs older than 10 years of age were more likely to score higher on owner-directed aggression. (more on the effects of spaying/neutering on behavior here)

Owner Characteristics: These seemed to have little effect on the likelihood of the dogs to be more likely to show aggression. Owner's age, education, and experience with raising dogs did not have significant association with aggression. Male owners were less likely to score their dogs high on owner-directed aggression than female owners.

Living conditions: Dogs that lived in houses with yard space and more household members scored significantly higher on stranger-directed responses and dog-directed responses -- but not for owner-directed. Dogs in rural areas scored higher in stranger-directed aggression and dogs that lived in households with other dogs scored lower on owner-directed aggression.

Owner-dog interaction: As well as the physical punishment, dogs acquired as puppies scored higher on stranger-directed aggression than those adopted as adults. Dogs that spent more than 5 hours daily with their owners scored lower on owner-directed aggression. Dogs acquired for guarding purposes scored higher on stranger-directed aggression.  Dogs that were kept outside of the house scored much higher on owner-directed aggression than ones that moved freely between inside and outside the home and ones that mostly lived inside the home.

Some of the study's commentary and observations:

There were a lot of similarities between enviornmental factors in stranger-directed aggression and dog-directed aggression.

The results of breed being a factor in aggression is consistent with other studies (more on breed differences in aggression here)

Dogs being kept outside having a stronger tendency toward aggression toward owners but not toward strangers may be the result of agressive dogs being "banished" outside, or because dogs kept outside my have lower owner involvement and thus correlate with this aggression.

Dogs living in rural areas and houses with yard space may be moe aggressive toward strangers because owners are more tolerant, or even encourage, these aggressive behaviors for protection -- even when guarding is not a primary reason for acquiring the dogs. Dog with houses with yard space are more frequently exposed to unfamiliar people and dogs walking by the property -- elicting the dog's territorial response.

The study data could be skewed because owners elected to fill out the survey. This self-selected group may be more homogenous than a random subset -- thus, there is likely a lower degree of variation thanif a random sample had been used.

The study does not attempt to show causal relationships between dog-aggression and environmental factors, but only to show relationshps that may lend support for the possibility of reducing aggressive behavior through proper owner management.

 --------

I don't know that there is anything revolutionary in this study. In part, because of the inability to completely determine causal factors, but also because even with strong correlation, people who know and understand canine behavior know that behavior is made up of a complex group of circumstances. Breed, Breeding (even within breeds), environment, how animals are cared for, how they are raised, trained, punished, rewarded, spay/neuter status, when they are removed from their litters, etc all play roles in canine behavior. Because of this complexity, it is difficult to determine causal factors because it is nearly impossible to isolate all of the other factors from each other.

However, as science continues to add to the knowledge base of this field, it is increasingly ridiculous for legislation to be passed that focuses solely on a small factor that may or may not have a causal part in aggression.

It's important for cities to focus on what science and experts say about canine behavior -- and focus legislation on the BEHAVIOR of an animal, vs what it looks like. It really is the only solution..

 

The first 60 minutes: Animal Sheltering's Critical Hour -- video

Yesterday, the folks over at Maddies Fund posted the video below. The presentation is given by Brian DiGangi, DVM and professor at the University of Florida school of veterinary medicine.

The presentation is about 50 minutes long, but well worth watching for anyone who is involved in sheltering because he spends a lot of time discussing the first 60 minutes of an animal's life in a shelter and the importance of that first 60 minutes in the likelihood of the animal leaving the shelter safely.

The presentation, while not terribly dynamic in nature, does cover a lot of ground and gives a lot of good information. It covers how to properly scan for microchips (it's a bit more complex than you think), quickly taking intake photos, providing a physical and behavioral evaluation (including the importance of gathering any history you can get on the animal -- even someone who picked up a stray in their neighborhood 2 hours ago knows more abou that animal than you do), vaccination protocols (and the importance of doing this every time, and quickly), and on planned movement of people and animals through the shelter (this section, at about minute 21, is very interesting as well).

While I want you to watch the whole video, there are three things I want to talk about a little bit more.

#1) Determining a pathway for an animal early on -- This is something we've talked quite a bit about at our shelter is determining an animal's pathway out of the shelter early on after intake. It doesn't take a lot of effort to do a quick evaluation effort on an animal and envision how that animal is going to eventually leave the shelter. Well-fed, well-cared for elderly animals are the most likely to be reclaimed by owners. Animals with identification are likely to be returned home.

Are certain types of dogs more likely to go to rescue groups in your community (for instance, we know that certain breed-specific rescues in town are always willing to take dogs of certain breeds)?  Are certain animals likely to be adopted quickly at the shelter?  Are some likely to need foster care in order to come behavioral or health challenges?  While you may change which "track" out of the shelter an animal is on over time, determining one early on can save a lot of headaches vs waiting for an animal to come off of stray hold and then wonder "now what do we do with it?". The speaker covers this idea early on -- about 3 minutes into the video.

#2) According to the statistics in the video, about 22% of dogs without microchips are reunited with owners. About 52% of dogs with chips are returned. For cats, a terrible 2% are reunited with owners without chips, but about 39% with chips are returned. Having a higher percentage of microchipped animals in a community is very important for owner reclaims and proper chip scanning is essential. This is all at about the 7 minute mark of the video.

#3) Vaccinations --  The speaker also gives some statistics on vaccinations. According to his numbers, more than 1/2 of the dogs that enter a shelter are not vaccinated against distemper, and about 30% aren't vaccinated against Parvo -- and there is really no way to tell if ones are vaccinated or not. So vaccinate them all -- not just for that animal's benefit, but to ensure the entire shelter population is kept safe.

Take a look and I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Two dog-bite related fatalities the week of 12/16

So, again, hate posting these stories but am working on some things for the year-end synopsis and having the indivdual stories will help draw some texture to this ongoing dialogue and conversation.

Dog bite-related fatalities are exceedingly rare -- with somewhere are 30 happening each year in the United States. While 30 may seem like a lot, in a nation with nearly 78 million owned dogs, and more than 300 million people, the odds of someone being a victim are virtually non-existent. But these cases do remain tragedies for the families of the victims, which is why its exceedingly important people to focus on the circumstances surrounding the attacks -- which is a much more impactful way of assessing them than by focusing just on the looks of the dogs involved.

Estaban Alavez - Selma, CA

 34 year old Esteban Alavez of Selma, A was found dead outside his home-- apparently a victim of being attacked by dogs. Alavez was found by a woman who saw him laying on her property when she arrived home that night.

The man was apparently attacked by four dogs, described as "pit bulls", that were roaming at large in the neighborhood -- and according to one neighbor, were frequently roaming at large and often displayed aggressive behavior prior to this event and were linked to the deaths of two pets in just the past month.

According to the the Fresno County Coroner, he suffered a bite that punctured his jugular vein.

A total of 12 dogs were seized from a nearby home -- including a chihuahua and 7 puppies that were not believed to be involved in the attack.

The community of Selma has a population of 23,219 with 31% of the population that lives below the poverty line -- more than double the national average.  The story was picked up by about 25 news sources.

No community should have to be fearful of roaming packs of aggressive dogs in their neighborhood -- regardless of the type of dogs they are. Any large group of dogs can be a problem for a singular individual if they become aggressive toward them, and can be controlled by the proper enforcement of a leash law.

My heart goes out to the Alavez family for their loss.

Savannah Edwards -- Shawnee County, KS

Two year old Savannah Edwards was tragically killed when she was bitten by a dog owned by a family relative.

The dog involved was a rescued dog, about 6 years old, and was a pit bull type dog.  Neighbors report that the dog was calm and mild mannered. 

Edwards, and her mother, went to visit their relative at his home in rural Shawnee County. It was that relative that owned the dog. Unfortunately, thus far, not much information is available on the circumstances leading up to the incident -- or whether the incident was an "attack" or whether it was a poorly placed bite.

Although major dog bites are rare, young toddlers are often the victims when they happen because they tend to not recognize warning signals given by dogs -- which is why children and dogs should always be supervised when they're together.

This area of Shawnee County has a poverty level of 21% -- so about 50% higher than the national average. Meanwhile, there has also been some mis-information in this case trying to link it to Topeka's breed specific law repeal two years ago. This incident occured in unincorporated Shawnee County (Topeka is the county seat of Shawnee County) and in an area unaffected by Topeka laws. Meanwhile, Topeka was very right to repeal their breed-specific law 2 years ago as there is no linkage between breed-specific laws at actually improving public safety.

Unfortunately this is a tragic accident and my heart goes out to the family in this case.

 

Weekly Roundup -- Week Ending 12/16/12

Been a busy week, and I really haven't gotten to posting much here the past few days. So here are a roundup of most of the week's top stories -- although there are a few that I will cover off on under separate covers tomorrow.

Enjoy.

Cities/States and laws

Schuyler, NE tabled a proposed law that would have targeted specific breeds of dogs.

Aberdeen, SD has once again decided against a law targeting pit bulls -- this time with a vote of 6-3 against the ban. An earlier vote last spring ended in a 4-4 tie, so the city continues to get more council members on the side of breed-neutral legislation.

Justice for Chloe

This is a very sad and tragic story from out of Commerce City, CO. In Commerce City, a house-sitter accidentally left the garage door open and allowed a pet dog named Chloe to be loose. Authorities arrived and cornered the dog in the garage. The dog acted very scared of the officers that surrounded him, but in spite of the fearful behavior, authorities tased the dog and put it on a catch pole. After more fear (from the tasing and capture), the dog continued to try to get away and then a 'police officer' decided to put 5 bullets into the contained dog --killing their family pet.

Meanwhile, the neighbors across the street got the entire event on video through an upstairs window. The authorities in Commerce City tried to justify their actions by saying the dog was a 'pit bull' and thus, they had to kill the fearful, contained dog due to public safety (as if, the idea that it was  pit bull somehow justified their actions). Chloe's owners are filing a legal suit agains the city for their actions and have formed a facebook page: Justice for Chloe. YesBiscuit also covered the story. We must be sure that our local authorities are responsible in their actions -- which don't involve shooting a harmless dog -- especially when the act of shooting the dog can be very dangerous, evidenced by the fact that a stray bullet hit the animal control officer's car.

Pit bulls in shelters

In Midland, TX, advocates are pushing the city shelter to get rid of an "outdated" policy that has every pit bull that enters the shelter be killed instead of evaluated and put up for adoption like other dogs entering the shelter.

Meanwhile, in Buffalo, NY, the Erie County SPCA director wants to help improve the reputation of pit bulls in order to increase the number adopted from their shelter.

Kansas City Area News

The negotiations over the operations of the Jackson County Animal Shelter in Independence continues -- with the county preferring to contract out the operations to the Great Plains SPCA, while the city of Independence wants to run the shelter themselves. For the life of me I can't figure out how any of them are going to run it on the allotted budget of under $500,000, but meanwhile a brand new animal shelter sits empty not helping the animals of the Kansas City metro.

A dog in the historic Elmwood Cemetery was captured this week. The dog had become a favorite of people around the cemetery because the dog and a resident deer (who lost his mother to being hit by a car last year) had seemed to become friends at the cemetery. A local shelter captured the dog, and when they came to get the trap, found the deer hanging out with his captured companion.

In a story I first mentioned a few weeks ago, the Platte City police chief is now under fire for the illegal surveillance camera he installed on private property to catch someone from (gasp!) feeding cats.

Miscellaneous

Meet an urban musher in Kansas City.

I got the opportunity to watch "Beyond the Myth" a couple of months back (and have yet to post about it), but one thing I left the movie thinking was how disappointed I was that they didn't show many of the updates since the film was completed. Here are some updates.

Another good book review of "I'm a Good Dog" by Ken Foster. Meanwhile, here's some coverage of Foster's trip to Denver where the city has been rounding up and killing pit bulls for years.

No Kill News

The West Valley City/Taylorsville, UT shelter teamed up with Best Friends Animal Society last year in order to help create a no kill community for the area. In 2011, the shelter saved only 58% of the animals that entered it. However, through 11 months in 2012, they have saved 82% and growing.

The city of Waco, TX held a no kill summit to try to increase the number of animals saved in the community.

Moreno Valley, CA is also looking at how they can reduce their euthanasia rates -- which are currently at about 60%. Among the programs will be to increase targeted spay/neuter, improving business hours, and lowering the cost of adoptions.

Hillsboro County, FL is looking to Manatee County as a role model of how they can begin to eliminate shelter killing in their county as well.

Austin 360 does a great profile on Austin Pets Alive's Ellen Jefferson. 

Blogs you should read

What should be done about the excess dogs in shelters? -- By Sam the Dog Trainer

Focus on the present, not the past, to get pets adopted -- Maddies Fund writes that how an animal behaves right now, and how they'll be in a home, is more important to adopters than sad stories or where the pet came from.

Dogs and babies, not always cute -- by Do you believe in Dog?

I talk a lot about bias in this blog, and so I think regular readers will find this interesting, but research indicates that Independents may be more immune to bias than liberals or conservatives.

All dogs are individuals -- "Every dog is an individual with a distinct set of needs and behaviors that are determined by a wide variety of factors: genetics, breeding, socialization, training, management and environment." -- More at the link from Animal Farm Foundation

Changing the conversation - more thoughts from Animal Farm Foundation on how sometimes when we talk about pit bulls, and don't put negative conversations into context, we are often perpetuating the stereotypes about pit bulls and their owners.

The second last day -- this is a really touching article by Pound Dogs about a dog he got to know at his city shelter that was euthanized. I love Fred's photography, but I also love his writing, which I miss -- but we sometimes get a glimps of as his blog has evolved.

From skeptic to breed advocate -- Samantha's Story -- from HugABull -- I think many of us entered this the same way, first with skepticism, but then, as we learned the real story about pit bulls, we became not just friendly with the dogs, but advocates against the ignorance as well.

12 reasons to adopt -- a video from the Willamson County Humane Society to the tune of the 12 Days of Christmas. It's cute, and only 37 seconds long

For Fun

The anatomy of a dog, including fear, brain function and enthusiasm

All eyes are still on Sikeston, as with 2 sides the story, pit bull roundup may continue

The saga in Sikeston continues.

Last week, news started to come out of Sikeston, MO that animal control officials were beginning to round up pit bulls in the community for non-compliance with the city's 9 year old breed-specific laws.

City officials contended that allegations were not true, and were never true. And the final results of the roundup, where 3 pit bulls found their way into the shelter for "non-compliance" may have indicated that city officials were right.

But as with all things, there are two sides to every story, and it appears the story being told in the community is very different than the story being told by city manager Robert Friend (and really, shame on the Sikeston Democrat for not even trying to connect with the other side of this story).

In the latest report, Sikeston Humane Society Director Trace Allen White contends that he was informed that there would be roundup last week -- and that is why he sent 30+ dogs to other shelters to make room for the influx of dogs to come into the shelter. White contends that due to the public outcry, the city ceased their roundup -- but that the roundup may continue at a later time once the outcry has died down.

Friend denies this charge.

I'll let you watch the great follow-up story by Chris Hayes of KTVI St. Louis. Thanks Chris for the follow-up on this story.

 

Meanwhile, the city leadership of Sikeston could learn a lot from the outcry and the situation that they've created. Because even if the allegations of the roundup are not true (I believe them to be true), their poorly crafted law is setting them up for this type of feedback.  So here is some constructive feedback for city leadership on their law:

1) Make the law behavior-based, not looks based. Not all of the aggressive dogs in Sikeston (and likely not even most of them) are pit bulls, and not all pit bulls in Sikeston are aggressive. This is NOT a wealthy community, and if public safety is the concern, then focusing the limited resources on dogs that have shown through their behavior to be aggressive is by far the best approach. It's fair, an effective.

2) If you confiscate a dog from someone because they violated the law, and you say you identified the dog as a 'pit bull' that wasn't living under the guidelines set forth by the city, your defensive of identifying the dog as a pit bull "by looking at it" is not really going to stand up so well in court. Especially when the dog is listed as a 15-20 lbs dog and lets some random news anchor just hold him in his arms.

3) The US Constitution guarantees Due Process. Your law should too. The current law notes that "any dog found to be subject of a violation of this ordinance shall be subject to immediate seizure and impoundment. In addition, a minimum $500 fine will be assessed..."

So there is no due process. Immediate seizure, and fine. This is not legal.

4) Please, go talk to the experts in your community about breed-specific laws. Talk to your area veterinarians. Your shelter director. Area dog trainers. I don't know any of them, but I can almost bet that they will completely oppose your position on this law as there is almost ZERO professional support for laws targeting specific breeds of dogs.

Leave good dogs with good owners in their homes. There is no reason to add dogs with homes to the shelter population in this state. It only leads to the deaths of dogs. Stop it. It's time to move on from your poorly though-out breed-specific law. The world is still watching.

Some parting thoughts about the incident in Sikeston, MO

Last week, I posted a blog in response to a media story (and a couple of other sources confirming the situation) about the authorities in Sikeston, MO rounding up pit bulls registered within the city. The blog received an unprecedented amount of popularity….receiving nearly 100,000 page views in less than 72 hours.  I’ve had popular blog posts, but never anything like that.

The final result of the “roundup” or “audit” (depending on whose words you want to use) did not end up nearly as bad as it initially sounded. Some close to the situation say the city backed off due to the harsh
public outcry, the city says it was never going to round them up and was just performing an “audit”. I do think the shelter director’s actions of sending 30+ dogs to other communities to make room for what he thought would be an influx of pit bulls that day sure signifies that he had reason to believe this would be far worse than it was, and the city is covering their tracks a bit.

I have my theories, but I’ll let you make your own decisions on whether the initial story by the media, and me, was greatly exaggerated or whether you think the city is covering their tracks and backpeddling a bit. I will say this though, if the city was just "driving by to verify that somebody who had a registered pit bull still lives at the address" (as the city manager claims) -- then I highly doubt that more than 10% of the city's registered pit bull population would have ended up at the shelter that day (and at least one other owner being forced to plead to keep her dog when authorities stopped by. I also think that the shelter sending 30 dogs to other communities signifies that they had reason to believe the "audit" would be worse.

That aside, the popularity of the story caught me off guard, not because I don’t think the story deserved the attention, but because, the story itself is unfortunately not terribly unique.

As a writer of this blog, and an advocate for dogs and owners for several years, I regularly get emails from people who are losing their pet due to breed-specific laws.  A few weeks ago I got an email from a woman in Tonganoxie, KS who lost her Rottweiler because of the city’s breed-ban.

Then there’s the story of Nikko – a dog that was adopted from the pound in Kansas City, KS as a shepherd mix puppy, but then months later, was confiscated from the owners because animal control said the dog he adopted from their shelter was an illegal pit bull. After nine months of fighting for their dog, and DNA evidence to prove the dog was not a pit bull, the dog was allowed to return home.

Then there’s Simba, a dog that was banned by the city of Grandview, MO. Simba’s owner went through the process of getting her dog grandfathered in with the city. The dog would have to be licensed, muzzled she was outside, and behind a 6 foot tall fence. Simba’s owner couldn’t afford a fence, but regularly let her dog outside to pee on a pee-pad on her deck – that was set 20 feet above the ground.  The only way for the elderly dog to get down would have been to jump, and she no doubt would have broken several limbs in the landing. Regardless, animal control seized her animal and she needed legal help to get Simba returned to her and her mentally disabled daughter.

These stories are terrible, and separate good owners from their family pets, and they happen across the nation in cities like Denver, CO  with laws that target dogs based on their looks, not behavior.

This is what breed-specific laws do.

And there is no doggie beach resort that these dogs go to when they’re confiscated.  At worst they
end up dead. At best they end up transferred to other communities to take up shelter space needed by dogs in those other communities.  

I guess I was just a little surprised by then the outrage about the situation in Sikeston – because this same thing happens in relative obscurity every day.

But that’s what else I learned about the situation in Sikeston.

First off, the media narrative is changing. I’ve talked about this before, but it used to be solely that any time a pit bull story ran, it was in connection with the dog being aggressive, with a stock photo of a
snarling dog. It’s not necessarily that way any more; with more and more positive stories, and various books being written about the dogs, and often times the dogs being painted as the victims. This is a very good thing.

Also, as people who advocate for dogs and owners, we have the ability to mobilize to help dogs and owners like never before. Facebook and other social media outlets allow us much more access to each other. Within a couple of days of the story breaking, hundreds of thousands of people had heard the news and literally 1000 letters, only from Missouri residents, were sent to the city council via Best Friends’ letter-writer program.  And the pressure was clearly felt by the city.

We have the power to change this, and we are changing this. Public support is swinging in our favor with entire states like Ohio (repealing their state-wide breed-specific law) and Massachusetts (making breed-specific laws illegal) turning the tide in just the past 12 months (along with a host of individual cities).

Let’s make these laws end. The data about the ineffectiveness of the laws is clearly in our favor. The data about the unreasonableness of the laws, is clearly in our favor. Expert opinion is clearly in our favor.  We just need to ensure that politicians are also; with thoughtful, polite communication with these politicians about why breed-targeted laws are wrong, and why behavior-based laws are better.

Because even if only 3 dogs ended up getting seized in Sikeston, that’s three too many. And if you’re the owner of one of those three dogs, then it’s your world that has been rocked by the loss of your family pet and that three might as well be 3,000.

It’s unnecessary, and we do have the power to change it. Go.

Update on the situation in Sikeston

As everyone in the world seems to know, on Wednesday night news started coming out a roundup of pit bull type dogs in Sikeston, MO. As time grows, and the story gets passed along, things become a little, eh, exaggerated. So I want to provide the most accurate information I can on the situation there.

Earlier this morning, Trace White of the Sikeston Humane Society posted an update on their facebook page. And here are a few more details of the situation in Sikeston:

-- First off, the Sikeston Humane Society holds the animal control contract for the community of 16,000 people. They are NOT animal control -- which is separate. Nor does SHS support the city's pit bull restrictions

-- Earlier this week, SHS shipped around 30 dogs to other shelters in the region in order to make room for the dogs expected to come in.  These are the dogs talked about in the news report -- as many were shipped to the St. Louis region.

-- From animal control's perspective, the "roundup" was part of an "audit" of the people who had licensed dogs under the city's pit bull restrictions. The restrictions require registration, Beware of Dog signs, insurance, top and bottom gate locks and requiring a muzzle if the dog is off your property. Animal Control was "auditing' these owners to be sure they were complying. If they weren't in compliance, their dogs were seized.

-- Earlier, Animal Control had estimated that SHS would receive about 20 dogs through this "audit" -- which is why the dogs at the shelter were shipped out. However, due to the push back, animal control never finished their audit -- and Mr. White isn't sure they ever will. Because they didn't finish, the final number of dogs received at the shelter was only 3 (which is still 3 too many). The dogs are going to be held to give the owners enough time to comply with the regulations and hopefully get their dogs back. Mr. White is working with these owners to get their dogs back, and if they cannot, they will be adopted out or sent to rescue.

 -- Mr. White agrees that the BSL in Sikeston needs to be changed - and he, himself, moved from Sikeston so he could walk his dogs without muzzles. He does feel that this is as close as they've ever been in his three years at the shelter to getting the law repealed.

-- If people want to help, they can send letters to the city staff and council stating they think the law should change. LETTERS MUST BE PROFESSIONAL AND COURTEOUS in order to be well-received. We should be sure they are focusing on the real goal, which is to protect families from aggressive dogs, and also from having their family pets removed from their home. If you aren't capable of doing this professionally and politely, please don't write to them.   

-----

I want to quickly note that I'm very grateful for Mr. White's presence at SHS -- if city shelter workers were of the same mindset as the city, and animal control, many animals likely would have died during this process. Even so, the animals that were sent out to other rescues are still displacing animals in those communities that badly need the shelter space also.

I'm also very grateful that due to the public outcry and support for the dogs and the families, the 'audit' has ceased. This is very good news and thanks to everyone for their support of the dogs and families.

I have a few other thoughts on this as well -- but I'm going to hold them for now until the urgency of the matter blows over.

Sikeston MO begins pit bull roundup

Several years ago, Sikeston, MO passed a law that automatically made 'pit bull type' dogs automatically declared dangerous. In order for people to keep their dogs, owners had to license their dogs (which included taking multiple pictures of the dogs from various angles), keep them leashed and muzzled, and  post 'beware of dog signs in their yards.

However, apparently that wasn't enough for the authorities in Sikeston -- and yesterday, they began rounding up 'pit bulls' out of people's homes to take to the shelter. Most will likely be killed there. It doesn't matter that these dogs were family pets. It doesn't matter that owners did everything to comply with the law. It doesn't seem to matter that the dogs had no history of aggression or complaints about them. It only seems to matter that they look like pit bulls, and the city authorities want them dead.  All of them.

This isn't happening in a 3rd world country. Or some science fiction novel. It's happening in the United States. In 2012. And this isn't the only place it's happened.

Several years ago, a similar incident happened in Denver, when authorities began going around and rounding up 'pit bull' type dogs, leading to a massive pile of dead pit bulls in the city (note, the picture at the link may be disturbing). And this is even different than the killing of homeless animals in our shelters (which is its own travesty), this is the purposeful rounding up and killing of people's family pets that HAVE loving homes.

People in Sikeston, Mo should be upset that this is happening. In fact, people everywhere should be upset this is happening. And if you are, sign the petition at Best Friends. And if you're in Sikeston, change all of your city leaders today. This is a tremendous waste of taxpayer funds that could be used to solve many of the city's other major problems.

For those not familiar with Sikeston, MO, here's a bit of the rundown. Sikeston is a community of about 16,000 people in rural Southeast Missouri. It's a poor community, with 35% of the population living below the poverty line. Crime in the city is high, with a crime index in 2010 of 632 (nearly double the national average of 319, and of the poverty level of Sikeston in 2002) -- in spite of the city employing nearly double the police officers per 1000 people (4) than the national average (2.5). So, there are much better places the city could be spending this money.

And if dog bites really are a huge issue in Sikeston, The Fox News report also does a great job of showing the failure of the city officials -- as they captured multiple video shots of dogs roaming at large through the neighborhoods of Sikeston. When one person who's dogs were taken by authorities mentioned the loose dogs, the police told her that "they couldn't catch them".  Excellent.

This is the type of thing you get when cities focus on hysterics instead of intelligence in creating their animal control (or any other) ordinances. This is what breed-specific legislation is. And this is why it needs to end.

I do want to tip my hat to the Sikeston Humane Society -- who in an effort to deal with the issue, transferred 35 dogs up to the St. Louis area in order to make room for the incoming animals in order to avoid having to kill for space. They seem to be making a strong effort in spite of a crappy situation created by their city leaders.

Update: There is a new update on the situation in Sikeston -- for the most recent information, please click here.

KC Pet Project update -- November 2012

As regular followers of this blog know, in January, 2012, an organization that I am very proud to be a part of took over the operations of the Kansas City, MO Animal Shelter. The city decided several years ago that it should get out of the "sheltering" business, and instead to contract the management of the shelter to outside organizations.

After 2 years with a previous vendor, they parted ways and set up a new RFP -- to which the KC Pet Project was chosen to operate the shelter. We operate the shelter as an open-admission shelter for the city of Kansas City, MO, with an annual intake of about 8,000 animals.

Over the past several years, the shelter save rate has improved -- from 38% in 2007 to 63% in 2010. In 2011, 68% of the animals were saved, but mostly because the city quit impounding as many animals during the interim period of management.

Since January, KC Pet Project has been working hard to increase life-saving and the quality of care for animals in the shelter and I've been posting occassional updates along the way.

While we take in a host of animals at the shelter; pigs, birds, reptiles, goats, chickens, oppossums, racoons, zebras (jk), etc, the numbers below only reflect our dog and cat numbers only. So here are the numbers for the month of November:

Intake -- 517 -- 405 dogs, 112 cats

Adoptions: 294 -- 218 dogs, 76 cats

Returned to owner: 70 -- all dogs

Transferred to other shelters/rescue groups: 58 -- 42 dogs, 16 cats

Euthanized: 53 -- 40 dogs, 13 cats

Save Rate: 94.3% (for both dogs and cats)

This is the 5th consecutive month that we have had a save rate of more than 90%.

The dog adoption numbers reflect our highest adoption numbers thus far -- much of this is from help by opening up a temporary adoption location in Zona Rosa shopping center for the holidays. In just 3 weeks, we have had an additional nearly 100 adoptions from the secondary location and has been the source of a wealth of great news coverage of our organization.

For the year (through the end of November):

Intake: 6,531 -- 4,470 dogs and 1851 cats

Adopted: 2700 -- 1896 dogs, 804 cats

RTO: 895 - 879 dogs, 16 cats

Transferred to other rescue groups; 1,451 -- 909 dogs, 542 cats

Clinic out: 11 dogs, 2 cats

Euthanized: 891 -- 575 dogs, 316 cats

Total positive outcomes for the year (so far): 5,059 -- which is 1,350 more than in the same 11 months a year ago.

Save rate on the year: 84.3% (and rising)

It's been a tremendous year thus far -- and I'm eternally grateful for our outstanding staff for living this every day and for the 15 animals they save every single day. I'm also grateful for our outstanding volunteers (including several professional photographers) and rescue partners who are helping make it all possible -- especially given that we're now serving 2 different locations. It's an incredible group of dedicated and talented individuals we work with.

I'll have a year end recap, as well as a final recap of our Zona Rosa location after the first of the year....

 

 

 

 

Massachusetts cities end breed discrimination

Back in August, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed bill 2184 into law -- a law that was a fairly comprehensive animal control bill that, among other things, made targeting breeds of dogs in city ordinances illegal, including over-riding all current local breed-specific laws. It also restricts the amount of time a dog may be tethered, creates fudning for a statewide spay/neuter program, and bans the use of the gas chamber for euthanasia.

At the time, two cities in Massachusetts had outright bans on 'pit bull-type" dogs, while several others places restrictions on pit bulls.

Then, in Marshfield, animal control officer Deni Goldman explained the changes to their selectmen -- noting that "Basically what this does is make owners more responsible for the actions of their pets, rather than saying that the reason that a pet misbehaved was because it was a breed of a certain type."

Well said.

Martha's Vinyard also appears to be making some changes to their local bylaws in order to comply with the new state law.

Meanwhile, the Telegram in Worcester, MA is reporting that that community has removed its breed restrictions without a lot of debate. 

The same is true in Lowell, MA where Mike Keiley of the Animal Advisory Committee noted that now "Animal control is in a better position now to take the laws that are in effect and be able to protect people more effectively. Keily also noted that the state's provision prohibiting breed-specific legislation is progressive compared to other states.

I couldn't agree more.

Like Ohio earlier this year, the new state law in Massachussetts is bringing rapid change to many communities who had old, archaic laws on the books, and positive changes that include targeting aggressive dogs based on their behavior, not based on what they look like.